JUDGMENT Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 28.9.2006 passed by respondent No. 4 and the appellate order passed by Commissioner, Meerut Division Meerut dated 28.4.2008. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Safai Karamchari in Nagar Palika Parishad Gulawati, District Bulandshahar in or around March, 1990. On the basis of some complaints, she was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and Executive Officer of Nagar Palika Parishad terminated the services of the petitioner. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, she filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The said appeal came to be rejected by order dated 28.4.2008. 4. It is stated that on the basis of false complaint an inquiry was instituted. However, no opportunity was given to the petitioner in the said inquiry. It is stated that one Sri Wahid Khan was appointed as Inquiry Officer and inspite of the fact that she was given full opportunity and notice, she did not appear before the Inquiry Officer and as such the Inquiry report has been accepted by the Executive Officer and her services were terminated. 5. The petitioner has made serious allegations against the then Executive Officer and the one Subhash Chandra Saini. She was served a charge-sheet dated 19.4.2002. The said charge-sheet contained several charges. She submitted the reply to the charge-sheet. A copy of the said reply to the charge-sheet is placed on record by the petitioner as Annexure 11 to the writ petition. In her reply, she has denied all the five charges mentioned in the charge-sheet. 6. It is significant to mention that she had made serious allegations against the then Executive Officer. However, it appears that an ex-parte inquiry has been conducted and the service of the petitioner was terminated on 13.6.2003. 7. Aggrieved by the said order, she had filed appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner vide order dated 13.6.2006 set aside the order on the ground that inquiry was conducted against the principles of natural justice as neither any notice was issued to the petitioner nor any opportunity was afforded to her. A copy of the said order of the Commissioner dated 13.6.2006 has been placed on record by the petitioner as Annexure 26 to the writ petition. 8. A copy of the said order of the Commissioner dated 13.6.2006 has been placed on record by the petitioner as Annexure 26 to the writ petition. 8. After the matter was remitted for fresh inquiry, a fresh show-cause notice was issued on 14.5.2006 and on the basis of the said show-cause notice again petitioner’s services were terminated on 28.9.2006. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had filed an appeal which has been dismissed by the Commissioner as stated above. 9. I have heard Sri Prabhat Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Devendra Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri K.S. Jadaun, learned counsel for the respondent. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the entire disciplinary proceeding is vitiated on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was given to her even no inquiry was conducted. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the reply submitted by the petitioner wherein she has made serious allegations of mala fide against the then Executive Officer. 11. He further urged that no inquiry at all was conducted. No oral evidence was adduced as no witnesses were examined on the basis of ex-parte inquiry, petitioner’s services have been terminated. He further urged that from the order of Commissioner it is evident that no reason has been given by the Commissioner. There is no reference of any evidence or any consideration of reply submitted by the petitioner. The Commissioner has recorded merely his conclusion that there is no merit in the appeal. 12. He further urged that in absence of any reason by the Appellate Authority, the impugned order is vitiated on this ground alone. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submitted that despite notice she did not appear and as such there is no breach of principles of natural justice. 14. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 15. The Commissioner by his earlier order dated 13.6.2006 allowed the appeal on the ground that inquiry was not conducted fairly and there was violation of principles of natural justice and as such, the termination order passed against the petitioner was set aside by the Commissioner. 16. The matter was remitted for fresh inquiry. Instead of holding any inquiry, a show-cause notice was issued on 14.5.2006. 16. The matter was remitted for fresh inquiry. Instead of holding any inquiry, a show-cause notice was issued on 14.5.2006. From the show-cause notice, it is clear that no fresh inquiry was conducted. Only a copy of the inquiry report was said to be sent to the petitioner. However, a copy of the said inquiry report has not been brought on record by the respondents. 17. In this view of the matter, from perusal of records it is established that when there was serious allegation of misconduct against the petitioner, a proper inquiry ought to have been conducted. No oral evidence was recorded nor any documents were filed in support of the charges. It is trite law that even in an ex parte inquiry, if an employee does not participate, employer is obliged to prove the charges by oral or documentary evidence. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon some judgments in the case of State of U.P. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, AIR 2010 SC 3131 ; Meenglas Tea Estate v. The Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1719 ; S.C. Girotra v. United Commercial Bank, 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 212. 19. In the present case, no material has been brought on record to establish that the respondents have conducted any inquiry as there is no reference of any evidence either in the order of termination or in the order of Commissioner. 20. A perusal of the order of Commissioner would indicate that it is bereft of reason, the order only says that there is no illegality in the termination order. Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Yunus Khan v. State of U.P., 2010 (10) SCC 539 , has held that the inquiry in departmental proceedings is to be conducted fairly and reasonably and inquiry report must contain reasons in support of finding of guilt. It cannot be ipse dixit of the enquiry officer. 21. In the present case from the records, I am satisfied that no proper inquiry has been conducted by the respondents as held by the Commissioner in his previous order and as such the termination order as well as the Appellate Order is set aside. 22. The respondents are directed to hold a fresh inquiry. The petitioner shall be placed under suspension and inquiry may be conducted as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months from the date of communication of this order. 22. The respondents are directed to hold a fresh inquiry. The petitioner shall be placed under suspension and inquiry may be conducted as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months from the date of communication of this order. The petitioner shall co-operate with the inquiry. 23. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is allowed. 24. No order is passed as to costs. ——————